AIR WAR COLLEGE

AIR UNIVERSITY

ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION IN THE UNITED STATES:

IMPLICATIONS FOR RULE OF LAW AND NATIONAL SECURITY

By

Paul A. Willingham, Lt Col, USAF, MSC

A Research Report Submitted to the Faculty

In Partial Fulfillment of the Graduation Requirements

15 February 2012

DISTRIBUTION A. Approved for public release: distribution unlimited

DISCLAIMER

The views expressed in this academic paper are those of the author and do not reflect the official

policy or position of the U.S. government or the Department of Defense. In accordance with Air

Force Instruction 51-303, it is not copyrighted, but is the property of the United States

government.

Biography

Lieutenant Colonel Paul A. Willingham is a United States Air Force Medical Service

Corps officer assigned to the Air War College, Air University, Maxwell AFB, Alabama. He

graduated from Pittsburg State University in 1992 with a Bachelor of Business Administration

degree and he earned his Masters of Business Administration in 1993 from Pittsburg State

University. He has served 17 years of active duty service and has commanded at the squadron

and group levels.

Abstract

The federal government’s failure to strictly enforce immigration laws presents national

security vulnerabilities and is subversive to the rule of law. Without the rule of law, serious

social tensions will occur that impel states and localities to fill the void left by the lack of

immigration enforcement. In the worst case, citizens themselves will consider taking the law

into their own hands when rule of law is not consistently and uniformly applied by a sovereign

nation. National security is also negatively impacted by failure to enforce immigration law.

This paper explores the impact of drug and human trafficking organizations, transnational gang

infiltration, increased terrorist vulnerability, increased violence along the southwest border

region and the growing threat of internal separatist movements. To remedy the issue, the federal

government needs to overcome political paralysis and muster the will to secure the border and to

enforce immigration law throughout the nation.

1

Introduction

Human migration has occurred since the dawn of man. Freedom of movement was

restricted only by one’s capability and will to relocate. The rise of the Westphalian state system

in the 17th century created a new international order that set forth the idea that nations were

sovereign territorial entities whose citizens possessed the right to exercise self-determination and

to live under the rule of law. While some international relations theorists suggest a waning

usefulness of the Westphalian model in favor of supranationalism, one can assume that the

existing state-based framework will serve as the prevailing model for the foreseeable future.

The United States has evolved a mature democratic system that is predicated on the rule

of law being the law of the land. One such rule is the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).

This law imposed a third restraint on human freedom of movement; while a non-citizen might

possess the will and capability to move to the U.S., prevailing law prevents the unregulated flow

of foreign people across its territorial boundary. The INA is the law of the land set out under

Title VIII of U.S. Code; but as recent history shows, INA lacks effectiveness based on failure of

the federal government to enforce the rule of law.

Since the passage of the original INA, the nation continued to experience a welcomed

influx of immigrants. Tens of millions of people entered through legal processes enabling them

to become naturalized citizens, but tens of millions also entered illegally thus circumventing the

national will geared toward welcoming and assimilating immigrants in a regulated manner. This

paper will argue that the federal government’s failure to enforce immigration law subverts the

rule of law and jeopardizes national security.

2

Rule of Law

Today we find ourselves at a national crossroads where 87% of U.S. citizens want the

federal government1 to enforce immigration law while the federal government exhibits no

political fortitude to execute the will of the people. To create context, it is important to

distinguish the scope of illegal immigration from the larger population of foreign born

individuals residing in the United States. The table below estimates there are 10.8 million illegal

immigrants as determined by the Department of Homeland Security.2

Half-hearted efforts by the federal government to secure the border, to conduct interior

immigration enforcement, and to address immigration processes and requirements in any

meaningful way are all self-inflicted wounds. Illegal immigration lives in a political sine wave

that rises to prominence in domestic, foreign and national security policy debates but quickly

diminishes in importance as politicians succumb to the complexity of the issue as well as

competing domestic and foreign actor influence. The government’s perception of illegal

immigration debate as a Gordian knot serves to sap political will and creates political paralysis in

3

crafting meaningful solutions until a system shock causes the issue to regain prominence. The

most recent shock to energize immigration debate has been caused by numerous state and local

government legal maneuvers to step in and fill the federal void with respect to immigration

enforcement. States such as Alabama, Arizona, Mississippi and Utah have enacted legislation to

enforce federal immigration law and numerous others have bills pending to address illegal

immigration. According to the National Council of State Legislatures, in the first quarter of

2011, legislators in the 50 states and Puerto Rico introduced 1,538 bills and resolutions relating

to immigrants and refugees. This number surpasses the first quarter of 2010, when 1,180 bills

were introduced.3 The question lies in whether or not the States and localities can generate

critical mass to force the federal government to engage. The status quo is rapidly revealing itself

to be untenable as the federal government’s self-proclaimed role as the sole executor of

immigration policy/law butts squarely against the willingness of states and localities to fill the

void left by federal inaction.

Assumptions critical to this paper are as follows: 1) The number of illegal immigrants in

the United States indicates that current immigration enforcement lacks effectiveness, 2) The

United States is a sovereign nation with the right to self-determination and should it muster the

political will to address illegal immigration, both rule of law and national security can be

reinforced. 3) The solution will not likely lie at the extremes of open borders with amnesty for

illegals nor will it lie in neo-isolationism with draconian mass deportations of illegals. The

political will to deal with tough challenges and the spirit of democratic compromise to yield a

better way forward will not only reinforce American values, it can help mold a more united and

secure nation.

4

Representative Lamar Smith, the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee

crafted an article for The Washington Times in March of 2010 where he artfully described the

link between illegal immigration and the rule of law/security risks posed by federal inaction. He

stated that “the great irony is that American freedoms and the rule of law are often the very

reason that many illegal immigrants try to come here. They are literally running from nations

historically characterized by an absence of the rule of law…and while we can sympathize with

their desire for freedom, we cannot allow them to break down the very institutions that make

America free and a beacon to immigrants from around the world. It is by adherence to the

founding principles, including the rule of law, that we will continue to be a strong, vibrant

America. If we abandon our principles because defending them seems too difficult, we risk

making America indistinguishable from the nations that too many immigrants want to leave.”4

The debate concerning rule of law seems to center on who has the preponderance of

rights. Roman Joch, Executive Director of the Civic Institute in Prague, posits that the genesis of

the polarity in views can be traced to political ideology. Generally, a liberal mindset typically

yields in favor of a de facto “open borders” policy while a conservative ideology lends itself well

to the rule of law approach. He states that “to make a sound judgment on the immigration

question, one must understand the following: while the right to emigrate is a basic human right,

the right to immigrate is not. Emigration is a right because a human being is not the property of

the state or its government.”5 However, this does not presuppose that an individual has an

automatic right to reside in another nation without the consent of its citizens. Joch summarizes

his points by positing that sovereign nations have the right to choose whether or not to “share

their country” with any prospective immigrant and choosing not to do so in no way violates a

person’s right as a human being. In his view, immigration freedom is double-sided; as “an

5

immigrant desiring entry and residence in the U.S. must be free to apply just as current American

citizens have the freedom to choose whether they wish to have this person as their fellow

citizen.”6 Joch indicates that under the rule of law construct, immigrants must abide by the law

of the land with the government having the right to enforce those laws and that the first act of

illegal immigration is a breach of the law and is therefore “not the best way to integrate into a

new country,”7 his sound argument about primacy of the rule of law then goes awry based on his

assumption that reality sometimes renders legal requirements impossible in that “arresting and

deporting 14 million illegal immigrants is unrealistic” if not unfeasible.8 This leads to his tried

and proven untrue recommendation of amnesty.

In 1986, the United States sought to solve the illegal immigrant problem through

amnesty. The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) was designed to sell American

citizens on the government’s ability and promise to secure the border and prevent illegal

immigration; but in order to do so the nation had to legalize those aliens currently residing here.

Mark Krikorian, Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies, states that “it would

be hard to imagine a system (IRCA) that was more obviously intended to fail.”9 He suggests that

amnesty is solely a way to help legislators more easily back out of an untenable situation that

they helped create through inattention to the original law. Under IRCA, 2.7 million illegal aliens

were legalized in concert with a failed effort to provide disincentives to prospective illegal

immigrants by eliminating access to the U.S. job and making it unlawful for employers to hire

illegal aliens. His assessment that IRCA was destined to fail is based on the federal

government’s refusal to require the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to develop a

system that employers could use to verify the legal status of prospective employees against

Social Security or INS databases. In fact, the federal government was more in favor of having

6

companies verify legal status themselves through a “bewildering array of easily forged

documents” followed closely by threats of Justice Department discrimination lawsuits “if they

looked too hard.”10 The net effect of IRCA was a short-term reduction in illegal crossings while

potential immigrants waited to “see if we were serious about enforcement” followed by a drastic

increase in illegal immigration “once people figured out that the government was not serious

about enforcement and that the new employer based verification system could be easily evaded

through the use of inexpensive phony documents.”11 Further, amnesty did not reassure

prospective immigrants that following U.S. immigration procedure was the preferred course of

action, however it did reinforce the idea that entering illegally provided more immediate benefit.

Why is the rule of law principle important? At its core, rule of law requires that

government officials and citizens are bound by and must act consistent with the law. In essence,

if laws are not applied consistently to all officials and citizens then the rule of law cannot be

satisfied.12 In any situation where a nation begins to abandon its belief that the rule of law will

prevail or if it begins to lose faith that agreed upon laws will be enforced, the fabric of society

starts to experience dangerous tensions. The federal government’s failure to uphold immigration

law is an illustrative example of how those tensions can be manifested.

A natural, yet concerning outcropping of failure to enforce the law is vigilante justice;

essentially citizens or groups of citizens taking matters into their own hands when they believe

that law is not being enforced uniformly. The Minuteman Project was created in 2005 by a

group of citizens who felt the federal government was failing to execute its duty to uphold U.S.

immigration law.13 The group assembled with the goal of doing what the federal government

would not do; enforce immigration law in an attempt to protect the sovereignty of the nation.

The U.S. justice system is inherently against citizens taking the law into their own hands, but this

7

is a natural tendency when citizens begin to lose faith that the rule of law will be applied and

enforced such that they perceive safety and security.

The deluge of recent immigration laws being enacted at the state and local levels is

another manifestation of public loss of confidence in the federal government’s ability and will to

enforce immigration law. In Manassas Virginia local citizens and elected officials started the

“Help Save Manassas” movement with the stated goal of passing “legislative action to reduce the

number of illegal aliens in our community.”14 The citizens asserted that the federal government

was not enforcing immigration law which disadvantaged their safety and security as U.S.

citizens. In 2007 they passed a law of their own, aptly named the Rule of Law Resolution, to do

the job of immigration enforcement that the federal government was not doing. Current inaction

by the federal government must be changed to a policy of active engagement to prevent a

growing tendency, on the part of U.S. citizens, to support and resort to the use of “whatever

means necessary” to deal with the problem.

A constitutional mandate exists for the federal government to protect the American

people against foreign and domestic threats. Citizens should have full faith that the government

will fulfill this responsibility by upholding national laws. But is failure to enforce immigration

law a threat to our national security? To begin parsing this question, one can begin by examining

if the lack of immigration enforcement contributes to the following: border violence fed by drug

and human smuggling, terrorist threats, transnational gang infiltration and the rise of separatist

organizations and ideologies within the United States.

8

National Security Implications

Numerous federal agencies have historically protected the border and interior of the

nation. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was created in the wake of 9/11 to be the

primary government action arm charged to protect American citizens. Several sub-agencies

under the DHS umbrella play a direct role in enforcing immigration law and ensuring

border/interior security. Counter-narcotics, Customs and Border Protection, Citizenship and

Immigration Services, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement are some of those agencies.

It is important to recognize that threats to national security can manifest themselves at any port

of entry; air, land and sea. The focus of this paper is on the land threat largely emanating along

the southwest border shared with Mexico. This does not presume that other avenues of entry are

not worthy of assessment in their own right.

The porous land border is of significant concern due to an increasing level of violence in

the region. Safety and security of U.S. citizens nationwide, and more acutely for citizens living

along the border, is held at risk. Perhaps the starkest assessment came from Zapata County,

Texas Sheriff Sigfredo Gonzalez when he stated that “the feds say our side of the border is safe,

but we have bullet holes in our schools and businesses that say otherwise.”15 A 2006 ABC News

piece outlined a 246-page report titled “At the Crossroads: Border Counties in Transition.” The

report, conducted by the University of Texas El Paso Institute for Policy and Economic

Development, stated that counties bordering Mexico would rank No. 1 in federal crime if they

were a state. It further assessed that “the crimes are mostly related to immigration and drugs

which makes the future look bleak for the borderlands if something isn't done soon.”16 Evidence

shows that alien smuggling strategies also presents unique vulnerabilities. A Congressional

Research Service report assesses that alien smuggling constitutes a significant risk to national

9

security and public safety. In fact, experts warn that terrorists may use existing smuggling

routes, methods and organizations to enter undetected.17 The CRS report indicates that “in

addition to generating billions of dollars in revenues for criminal enterprises, alien smuggling

can lead to collateral crimes including kidnapping, homicide, high speed flight, identity theft and

the manufacturing/distribution of fraudulent documents.”18 Poor border security and

enforcement can therefore be shown to pose a national security risk to U.S. citizens.

The threat of terrorism in a post-9/11 world is real, and a porous border and ineffective

enforcement of immigration law serves only to increase that threat. A Public Broadcasting

System Frontline report chronicled the capture of terrorist Ahmed Ressam whose testimony that

showed how al Qaeda terrorists planned to exploit immigration laws and porous borders to gain

access to the United States. The report states “the picture of al Qaeda that is emerging through

Ressam's case and ongoing investigations is of a sophisticated terrorist network, able to send

"sleeper" agents like Ressam anywhere in the world. Al Qaeda depends on the ability to travel

internationally in order to raise funds, recruit and train operatives, and send them out to plan and

conduct terrorist attacks. Key to their international mobility is being able to circumvent

immigration laws and law enforcement watch lists.”19 While there is a shortage of open source

information concerning terrorists crossing into the United States, an insightful article by

investigative reporter Todd Bensman cites several government officials who are concerned about

terrorist ability to cross the porous border. Specifically cited are Director of National

Intelligence Mike McConnell, deputy Secretary of Homeland Security James Loy and FBI

Director Robert Meuller. McConnell asserted in The El Paso Times that “terrorists have been

caught trying to cross the Mexican border and that these interdictions saved American lives.”

Deputy Secretary Loy testified before the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence in

10

February 2005 stating that "recent information from ongoing investigations, detentions and

emerging threat streams strongly suggests that al-Qaeda leaders believe operatives can pay their

way into Mexico and also believe illegal entry is more advantageous than legal entry for

operational security reasons." Finally, Director Mueller testified before a Congressional

committee in 2006, that a number of Hezbollah terrorists had crossed into the U.S. from Mexico

but offered no details. He did offer a follow up in 2007 when he told reporters “We have had

indications that leaders of other terrorist groups may be contemplating...having persons come

across assuming identities of others, and trying to get across the border. It is intelligence that

indicates there have been discussions on that.” Bensman adds that when pressed for details, men

like Mueller and Loy have to demur, citing official secrecy rules designed to protect

investigations while in play, as well as intelligence-gathering methods, confidential informants

and sources so as to keep terrorist targets from figuring out how they've been compromised.20 It

has been shown that lax enforcement of immigration law poses a national security threat by

using just one example of the land border.

Federal government failure to enforce INA is deleterious to national security because it

enables transnational gang access to the United States. These gangs are closely tied to Drug

Trafficking Organizations (DTOs) and it is big business. To protect their illicit goods and drive

up profits, DTOs have increased violence on both sides of the Mexican-American border.

Control of drug trafficking corridors yields significant income from “taxation” of drug shipments

through the cartel-controlled border plazas. A highly profitable plaza is typically linked to an

American sister city (i.e. Laredo/Nuevo Lared).21 While DTO trafficking routes incorporate

technology and human intelligence to avoid contact with law enforcement, mere proximity to an

American sister city enables cartels to quickly inject illicit drugs into a robust U.S. distribution

11

network. These “American-side” networks then break the bulk shipments down for easier

transport, less risk of seizure, and rapid sale via U.S. transnational gangs such as the Latin Kings

and Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13). It is estimated that DTO influence, bolstered by the partnership

with the transnational gangs, is present in 230 American cities.22 DTOs and transnational gangs

have proven to be resilient, dynamic and learning crime syndicates. This is evidenced by their

innovative, adaptive methods to transgress the porous border. DTOs and transnational gangs

have a keen ability to be one step ahead of U.S. efforts which enables them to shift crossing

points to counter Border Patrol strategy adjustments. Further evidence of DTO and gang

adaptability is supported by Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) who states “underground tunnels on

the southwest border present a serious national security threat… smugglers have gone

underground to evade border enforcement. An astonishing 154 tunnels have been discovered

since May 1990. On a recent visit to San Diego, I saw a sophisticated tunnel close to half a mile

long stretching from an abandoned warehouse to Tijuana, Mexico. Designed with tracks and

pulleys, smuggling tunnels are growing along border states to transport drugs, and can be used to

transport weapons and people.”23 There is a clear connection between DTO and transnational

gangs and national security threats.

A final threat to national security can be viewed through the lens of cultural assimilation.

It can be posited that the mass inflow of illegal immigrants is causing a dramatic shift in

American culture due to inability, and in some cases unwillingness to assimilate to the American

way of life. Assimilation is based on one’s desire to become American first regardless of birth

country. Admittedly this section focuses on a very narrow subset of illegal immigrants, Mexican

Latinos, but only in an effort to illustrate the point and not to disregard similar concerns in other

ethnic diaspora. This group was chosen due to the fact that Mexican nationals comprise 62% of

12

the unauthorized resident population.24 It is therefore the most studied ethnic group with respect

to integration into American culture. Based on his statistical analysis of Mexican immigration,

Edward P. Lazear states that “Latino aliens become assimilated much less rapidly than do other

groups.” The 2000 U.S. Census data shows that 49% of Mexican immigrants are fluent in

English compared to 80% of non-Mexican immigrants. Lazear further suggests that Mexican

immigrants more commonly “concentrate in ethnic enclaves” versus other race groups.25

Fernando Romero, author of Hyperborder, states that, between 1990 and 2000, the Latino

population present in the United States rose from 22.4 million to 35.3 million, which at a growth

rate of 58% far exceeded that of other minority groups and the current ethnic majority group of

whites/Caucasians. Further, he states that at current growth rates, “by 2050, Hispanics could

represent 25% of the U.S. population and that 11% of all Mexicans will be living in the United

States.”26 Samuel Huntington’s The Clash of Civilizations, deems migration to be the “central

issue of our time.” With respect to the nearly 7 million Mexican aliens in the United States,

Huntington suggests that “if one million Mexican soldiers crossed the border, Americans would

treat it as a major threat to their national security and react accordingly. The invasion of over 1

million Mexican citizens would be a comparable threat to American societal security, and

Americans should react against it with vigor. Mexican immigration is a unique, disturbing and

looming challenge to our cultural integrity, our national identity, and potentially to our future as

a country.”27 Congressman J.D. Hayworth (R-AZ) wrote in a 2005 article that “Mexico's

Foreign Ministry has produced and distributed a "Guide for the Mexican Migrant," which is

essentially a "how-to" manual for illegal entry into the United States. Unfortunately, the manual

goes even further by providing recommendations for illegal aliens in evading detection of federal

authorities once inside the United States. Not once does the guide mention how a Mexican

13

migrant can come to the U.S. legally. Indeed, the problem begins with Mexican President

Vicente Fox, who openly encourages more Mexicans to head north, not only breaking our

immigration laws but also trampling the spirit of citizenship and assimilation those laws were

designed to foster.”28

Research shows that there is a separatist component to the Mexican illegal immigration

situation as well. El Plan Espiritual de Aztlán was adopted at the first National Chicano Youth

Liberation Conference in Denver, Colorado, March 1969. The grand strategy of the Aztlán

movement is to create “a nation autonomous and free, culturally, socially, economically, and

politically, that will make its own decisions on the usage of our lands (emphasis added), the

taxation of our goods, the utilization of our bodies for war, the determination of justice, and the

profit of our sweat. El Plan de Aztlán is the plan of liberation!”29 MEChA (Moviemiento

Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlán) or the Aztlán Chicano Student Movement is an organization

operating within the United States whose mission is as follows: “Essentially, we are a Chicana

and Chicano student movement directly linked to Aztlán. As Chicanas and Chicanos of Aztlán,

we are a nationalist movement of Indigenous Gente that lay claim to the land that is ours by

birthright. As a nationalist movement we seek to free our people from the exploitation of an

oppressive society that occupies our land.”30 The geographic boundaries of Aztlán that the

MEChA and similar activist groups seek to make independent from the United States is

represented below.31

14

Conclusion

The federal government has the tools at its disposal to correct illegal immigration.

Should it muster the political will to enforce the body of law laid out in the INA, our borders and

interior can be secured providing improved national security as well as manifesting an overt

recommitment to the rule of law principle. Positively addressing the immigration issue will take

a truly bipartisan congressional effort and committed leadership from the executive branch.

Taking the path of least resistance in the form of legislative amnesty will only serve to reward

further subversion of U.S. immigration law and have a compounding effect on the negative

factors outlined in this paper. There can be no doubt that the United States needs responsible

immigration to feed the lifeblood of this democratic nation; but the current federal government

approach in no way resembles a responsible approach. The solution likely lies in a moderate,

well thought out strategy that uses a whole of government effort versus extreme options either in

the form of open borders or draconian forced deportation.

15

Adopting a phasing strategy that secures the nation and its sovereign territory,

demagnetizes illegal entry/incentivizes legal entry, and reforms citizenship processes can help

achieve the goal of responsible immigration. The federal government can enforce immigration

law still be the “city on a hill” that prospective immigrants find so appealing. The proposed

roadmap places immediate effort on securing the border and removing the incentives associated

with illegal immigration.

Any successful attempt to curb illegal immigration must be kick started with the

implementation of a national identification card and a redoubled effort to complete the border

fence within 6 months to 1 year. Construction would be accomplished by 3 entities: private

contract, public works and state-owned (Title 32) National Guardsmen. While the private

contractor and military pieces are self-evident, the remaining tool bears further explanation.

From a public works perspective, the nation should have a WPA-like (Work Projects

Administration) endeavor to put those on public assistance (i.e. Welfare and Unemployment

programs) back to work in helping to expedite completion of the border fence.

The government should also seek to eliminate taxpayer assistance to any program that

serves as a magnet to illegal aliens and the nation must have a publicized date where full

enforcement of INA will be placed in effect so that illegal immigrants can have an opportunity to

self-deport and also so employers can adjust to legal workforce sourcing. All efforts should be

made to utilize those citizens who are on public assistance to fill those job vacancies.

Legislation should be passed that ties reductions in foreign aid to countries that are a source of

illegal immigrants. Concurrent to the demagnetization effort, the nation needs to expand its

extension of visas to those in math and science (high-tech visas) and greatly improve processes

to speed up visa requests for those who are in queue. The system should provide 100% tracking

16

of those in the country on visas so we can take action when “overstays” occur. To accomplish

enforcement actions within existing INA law, partnership must exist between federal, state and

local law enforcement; this is where a national identification card becomes vital. All citizens

should be prepared to show this ID card at appropriate times; voting, traffic stops, etc. The

enforcement methodology can be thought of as “easy exit/hard entry” with respect to

immigration enforcement. Through attrition, the illegal alien population will be brought down

significantly as is proven in states that are working to enforce federal immigration law. Once

people know the nation is serious about responsible immigration, the matter will be largely self-

correcting. From a foreign policy perspective, the United States should continue to work closely

with nations like Mexico to improve intrinsic economic development. Diplomatically, we should

send clear signals to countries like Venezuela and Mexico with respect to their unsolicited

commentary and interference with U.S. immigration enforcement such that any foreign nations

criticize at their own risk.

Lastly, the United States needs to have a process in place to adjudicate Birthright

Citizenship such that citizenship is only automatic if one or both parents are U.S. citizens. This

will prevent the propagation of the “anchor baby” phenomenon where foreigners come to the

U.S. for the purpose of having a child so they can be “tied to the U.S.” by virtue of that child.

By incrementally expanding legal immigration options and eliminating incentives to circumvent

national law, the nation can grow and preserve a legal workforce, acquire intellect and talent,

improve national security, restore rule of law and improve protections for legal residents…both

citizens and immigrants. All it takes is the political will in Washington to do what the citizenry

wants.

17

Notes

1 Rasmussen Reports. “On Immigration, Large Gap Remains Between Mainstream America and Political Class.” http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/immigration/on_immigration_large_gap_remains_between_mainstream_america_and_political_class. 2 Hoefer, Michael, Nancy Rytina, and Bryan C. Baker. Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States: January 2010. Population Estimates 2011. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics, February 2011, p 3. 3 National Conference of State Legislatures. “2011 Immigration-Related Laws, Bills and Resol-utions in the States: Jan. 1-March 31, 2011.” http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=13114. 4 Smith, Lamar. “Adhere to the Rule of Law on Immigration Policy.” Washington Times, The (DC), 24 March 2010. 5 Joch, Roman. “Immigration in the United States.” New Presence: The Prague Journal of Central European Affairs (Summer 2010) [32-34]. 6 Ibid. 7 Ibid. 8 Ibid. 9 Krikorian, Mark. “Amnesty, Again.” National Review, Jan 26, 2004: [28-31]. 10 Ibid. 11 Ibid. 12 Tamanaha, Brian, “A Concise Guide to the Rule of Law” (Research Paper, St. John’s School of Law, 2007), p. 3. 13 Camerota, Stephen, “The Minuteman’s Success.” Center for Immigration Studies, 13 May 2005. http://www.cis.org/node/393 14 Prince William County’s Rule of Law Resolution, http://www.helpsavemanassas.org/index.php/rule-of-law-resolution 15 Omer, Sevil, “More Will Die: Mexico Drug Wars Claim U.S. Lives.” MSNBC.com, 22 Apr 2011. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42232161/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/. 16 “Border Counties: Crime Skyrockets,” ABC News, 8 March 2006, http://abcnews.go.com/US/Story?id=1700763&page=1 17 Wasem, Ruth E. Overview of Immigration Issues in the 112th Congress. Washington DC: Congressional Research Service, 21 March 2011. 18 Ibid. 19 Zill, Oriana, “Crossing Borders: How Terrorists Use Fake Passports, Visas, and Other Identity Documents.” PBS Series Frontline, 25 October 2001. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/trail/etc/fake.html 20 Bensman, Todd, “Have Terrorists Crossed? Border Security Critics Assert No Terrorist Has Illegally Jumped U.S. Borders; They Would Be Wrong.” The Investigative Project on Terrorism, 25 March 2008. http://www.investigativeproject.org/625/have-terrorists-crossed 21 Stratfor. “Mexico: The Vital Role of Gatekeepers in the Smuggling Business.” Offnews.info, 23 December 2006. http://www.offnews.info/verArticulo.php?contenidoID=6936.

18

22 Omer, Sevil, “More Will Die: Mexico Drug Wars Claim U.S. Lives.” MSNBC.com, 22 Apr 2011. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42232161/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/. 23 Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control, Senators Seek to Combat Illegal Tunnel Activity on Southwest Border, 21 June 2011. http://drugcaucus.senate.gov/r-tunnel-prevention-act2011-6-21-11.html 24 Ribando-Seelke, Clare. Mexico: Issues for Congress. Washington DC: Congressional Research Service, 9 June 2011, p 24. 25 Lazear, Edward P. “Mexican Assimilation in the United States.” In Mexican Immigration to the United States, edited by George Borjas, 107-122. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press, 2007. 26 Romero, Fernando. Hyperborder. New York NY: Princeton Architectural Press, 2008. p 11, 169 27 Samuel P. Huntington, “Reconsidering Immigration: Is Mexico a Special Case?” Center for Immigration Studies Backgrounder, November 2000, p. 5. 28 Hayworth, J.D., “Fox’s ‘Guide’ for Aliens Undermines Bush’s Plan,” Statesman.com, 28 May 2010. http://www.statesman.com/republish/foxs-guide-for-aliens-undermines-bushs-plan-714606.html 29 “El Plan Espiritual de Aztlan,” University of Texas Pan-American, http://www.utpa.edu/orgs/MEChA/aztlan.html. 30 Ibid. 31 “Professor Predicts Hispanic Homeland,” http://www.Aztlán.net/homeland.htm

19

Bibliography

ABC News. Border Counties: Crime Skyrockets. March 8, 2006. http://abcnews.go.com/US/Story?id=1700763&page=1 (accessed August 20, 2011).

Associated Press. Mexico's 2012 Presidential Favorite Announces Candidacy. September 21, 2011. http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2011/09/21/pena-nieto-announces-run-for-mexico-presidency/ (accessed November 15, 2011).

BBC News Latin America and the Caribbean. Profile: Felipe Calderon. January 21, 2011. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-12242685 (accessed August 20, 2011).

Bensman, Todd. Have Terrorists Crossed? Border Security Critics Assert No Terrorist Has Illegally Jumped U.S. Borders; They Would Be Wrong. March 25, 2008. http://www.investigativeproject.org/625/have-terrorists-crossed (accessed August 20, 2011).

Buchanan, Patrick J. The Death of the West; How Dying Populations and Immigrant Invasions Imperil Our Country and Civilization. New York, NY: Thomas Dunne Books, St. Martin's Press, 2002.

Camerota, Stephen. The Minuteman's Success. May 13, 2005. http://www.cis.org/node/393 (accessed August 20, 2011).

Carter, April, Marie Lawrence, and Ann Morse. 2011 Immigration-Related Laws, Bills and Resolutions in the States: January 1-31 March, 2011. March 31, 2011. http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=13114 (accessed September 30, 2011).

Casey, John P. "Open Borders: Absurd Chimera or Inevitable Future Policy." International Migration vol 48 (2010): 14-62.

Chertoff, Michael. Homeland Security. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2007.

Chomsky, Aviva. "They Take Out Jobs!" And 20 Other Myths About Immigration. Boston, MA: Beacon Press Books, 2007.

CNN Money. Fortune 500 Company Profits. May 23, 2011. http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2011/full_list/ (accessed August 20, 2011).

Dixon, Peter B., and Maureen T. Rimmer. "Restriction or Legalization? Measuring the Economic Benefits of Immigration Reform." Trade Policy Analysis (Center for Trade Policy Studies, Cato Institute) no. 40 (August 2009): 26-59.

20

Djelic, Marie-Laurie. "From the Rule of Law to the Law of Rules." International Studies of Management and Organizational Journal 41, no. 1 (April 2011): 35-61.

Duignan, Peter, and Lewis H. Gann. The Debate in the United States Over Immigration. Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press, Stanford University, 1998.

Facts on File News Service. Mexico's Drug War, Research Feature. September 2009. http://www.2facts.com/article/r00133 (accessed September 13, 2011).

Fox News Latino. Remittances to Mexico Up Marginally in 2010. February 2, 2011. http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/money/2011/02/02/remittances-mexico-marginally/ (accessed August 20, 2011).

Frum, David. "How I Rethought Immigration, One Man's Confession." National Review, 2007: 34-37.

Galston, William, Noah Pickus, and Peter Skerry. "From Deep Disagreements to Constructive Proposals; A Report from the Brookings-Duke Immigration Policy Roundtable." Society, February 20, 2010: 85-101.

Grayson, George W. Mexico: Narco-Violence and a Failed State? Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 2010.

Griswold, Daniel. "The Fiscal Impact of Immigration Reform: The Real Story." The Free Trade Bulletin, May 21, 2007: 45-96.

Hayworth, J.D. Fox's 'Guide' for Aliens Undermines Bush's Plan. January 9, 2005. http://www.statesman.com/republish/foxs-guide-for-aliens-undermines-bushs-plan-714606.html (accessed August 20, 2011).

Hernandez, Daniel. How Many Have Died in Mexico's Drug War? June 7, 2011. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/laplaza/2011/06/mexico-war-dead-update-figures-40000.html (accessed August 20, 2011).

Hoefer, Michael, Nancy Rytina, and Bryan C. Baker. "Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States: January 2010." Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics. February 2011. http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/ois_ill_pe_2010.pdf (accessed August 20, 2011).

Hornberger, Jacob G. Keep the Borders Open. February 2002. http://www.fff.org/comment/com0202h.asp (accessed August 20, 2011).

Huntington, Samuel P. Reconsidering Immigration: Is Mexico a Special Case? November 2000. http://www.cis.org/articles/2000/back1100.html (accessed August 20, 2011).

21

Joch, Roman. "Immigration in the United States." New Presence: The Prague Journal of Central European Affairs, 2010: 32-43.

Krikorian, Mark. "Amnesty, Again." National Review, January 2004: 28-31.

Lajeunesse, William. ATF Director Reassigned; U.S. Attorney Out Amid "Fast and Furious" Uproar. August 2011, 2011. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/08/30/sources-atf-director-to-be-reassigned-amid-fast-and-furious-uproar/ (accessed September 20, 2011).

Latin American Herald Tribune. Drug Cartels Make $64 Billion a Year from U.S., Mexican Says. August 27, 2009. http://www.laht.com/article.asp?ArticleId=342471&CategoryId=14091 (accessed September 20, 2011).

Lazear, Edward P. "Mexican Assimilation in the United States." In Mexican Immigration to the United States, by George Borjas, 107-122. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2007.

Liebert, Saltanat. "The Role of Informal Institutions in U.S. Immigration Policy." Public Administration Review, May/June 2010: 390-399.

MEChA. El Plan Espiritual de Aztlan. n.d. http://www.utpa.edu/orgs/MEChA/aztlan.html (accessed January 10, 2012).

Office of the United States Trade Representative. n.d. http://www.ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/north-american-free-trade-agreement-nafta (accessed September 20, 2011).

Office of the United States Trade Representative. n.d. http://www.ustr.gov/countries-regions/americas/mexico (accessed September 20, 2011).

Omer, Sevil. More Will Die: Mexico Drug Wars Claim U.S. Lives. April 22, 2011. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42232161/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/ (accessed August 20, 2011).

Opposing Viewpoints Series. Illegal Immigration: Opposing Viewpoints. San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press, 2002.

Ordonez, Karina J. "Securing the United States-Mexico Border: An Ongoing Dilemma." Homeland Security Affairs Journal, 2008: 1.

Prince William County's Rule of Law Resolution. April 29, 2008. http://www.helpsavemanassas.org/index.php/rule-of-law-resolution (accessed August 20, 2011).

22

Ramanujan, Nadadur. "Illegal Immigration: A Positive Economic Contribution to the United States." Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies vol 35, no. 6 (July 2009): 1037-1052.

Rasmussen Reports. On Immigration, Large Gap Remains Between Mainstream America and Political Class. April 14, 2009. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/immigration/on_immigration_large_gap_remains_between_mainstream_america_and_political_class (accessed August 20, 2011).

Ribando-Seelke, Clare. Mexico: Issues for Congress. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service, 9 June 2011.

Ribando-Seelke, Clare, and Kristin M. Finklea. U.S.-Mexican Security Cooperation: The Merida Initiative and Beyond. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service, August 2011.

Romero, Fernando. Hyperborder. New York, NY: Princeton Architectural Press, 2008.

Rouse, Stella M, Betina C. Wilkinson, and James C. Garand. "Divided Loyalties? Understanding Variation in Latino Attitudes Toward Immigration." Social Science Quarterly vol 91, no. 3 (September 2010): 856-881.

"Senators Seek to Combat Illegal Tunnel Activity on Southwest Border." Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control. June 21, 2011. http://drugcaucus.senate.gov/r-tunnel-prevention-act2011-6-21-11.html (accessed August 20, 2011).

Smith, Lamar. "Adhere to the Rule of Law on Immigration Policy." The Washington Times. Washington, D.C., March 24, 2010.

STRATFOR. Mexico: The Vital Role of Gatekeepers in the Smuggling Business. December 23, 2006. http://www.offnews.info/verArticulo.php?contenidoID=6936 (accessed August 20, 2011).

Tamanaha, Brian. "A Concise Guide to the Rule of Law." 2007. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1012051 (accessed September 30, 2011).

The Associated Press. Professor Predicts Hispanic Homeland. 2000. http://www.aztlan.net/homeland.htm (accessed January 18, 2012).

The White House. Building a 21st Century Immigration System. May 10, 2011. http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/05/10/president-s-blueprint-building-21st-century-immigration-system (accessed September 30, 2011).

The World Bank. The World Bank Indicators. n.d. http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GNP.PCAP.CD (accessed August 20, 2011).

23

United States Agency for International Development (USAID). Central America and Mexico Gang Assessment. Washington D.C.: USAID, 2006.

United States Energy Information Administration. August 31, 2011. http://www.eia.gov/petroleum/imports/companylevel/ (accessed September 20, 2011).

Wasem, Ruth E. Overview of Immigration Issues in the 112th Congress. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service, 21 March, 2011.

Weymouth, Lally. Mexican President Felipe Calderon. February 7, 2010. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/05/AR2010020501443_2.html (accessed September 20, 2011).

Zill, Oriana. Crossing Borders: How Terrorists Use Fake Passports, Visas, and Other Identity Documents. October 25, 2001. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/trail/etc/fake.html (accessed August 20, 2011).